What is the difference between revenge and justice

[Amuse]

I have been pondering this question for some time and the only conclusion I can come up with is that there is no physical difference, only conceptual difference. Revenge being less acceptable than justice, we choose to term counter actions to an event as justice.
Is there a line between justice and revenge? Does the "ends justify the means"?:eek:

[samsara15]

When our side does it, it's justice, when the other side does it, it's revenge.

When it is truly done for the good of the society as a whole, it qualifies as justice, which does not necessarily make it moral, because what qualifies anyone to decide what is good for the society as a whole? For example, see the extended discussion about moral relativism.

[Castle]

There is a real distinction. Revenge is intended to provide closure for the person seeking it. Justice serves to punish a person for their actions. One is personal; one is not. One is designed to heal; one to hurt. One is justifiable; one is not I'll leave you to figure out which is which.

[The Bacon Guy]

I don't know what the official definitions are, but I see the distinction in terms of intent. Justice would be to impose unpleasant consequences upon somebody in order to correct their behaviour or to deter others from exhibiting similar behaviour. Vengeance is to impose unpleasant consequences on somebody simply for the sake of causing harm, because the person feels that they deserve to suffer. One is constructive and necessary; the other is destructive and totally unacceptable.

[Jakob]

Revenge is seeking reparations for a (presumed or otherwise) wrong. Justice is doing so, but within the confines of a law or code, usually one which is commonly known and held.

[Jack]

there is no physical difference, only conceptual difference.

This applies to many things in society. Killing another person in this country is either justified or unjustified. There's no difference in the action, a person has been killed. The difference is only in the perception, the circumstances and what we as a society have agreed defines the difference. We don't sympathize with the thief who steals for personal gain, but we will excuse a man who steals food to feed his starving children.
In all these cases the action is essentially neutral. It isn't until we wrap the action in the cloak of motivation that we assign a moral value to it.